Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1887-10-01
IMPORTANT OPINION
ANNOUNCED BY JUDGE JACKSON, IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT YESTERDAY.
In The Chancsry CSuss Of 0pie v. Casasman-Hs
Honor Holds That the Plaintiff is En-
titled 10 the Relief Sought.

The United States District Court ad-
journed yesterday, and during the after
noon most of the officials left the city for
their several homes. During the morning
session of the Court, as was announced in
the REGISTER yesterday morning, Judge
Jackson delivered his opinion in the
chancery cause of Opie v. Castleman, in
which the Court held that the plaintiff
was right in his claim and that he was en-
titled, in equity and law, to the relief
sought. The case is of so unusual and
interesting a nature, that it is worthy of
detailed narration.
In 1856 Hiram l.. 0pie, the father of the
plaintiff, sold to Henry Castleman, now
deceased, a tract of land in jefferson coun-
ty, then in the State of Virginia, for
the sum of Sal, 1873 sc, ten thousand
dollars cash in hand, and the remainder in
deferred instalments, evidenced by notes
bearing date January LIST, 1856, the first
for s., 900, due January l, 1857; the sec
ond for s., 900, bearing date January /,
1858, and six other notes for $3,622.21,
payable respectively January /, 1859,
1860, 1861, 1862, 1863, and 1854, all bear
ing Interest from date. SBbrtly after the
sale of the land, Opie removed to Augusta
county, Va, where he resided until his
death in 1862. At the time of the sale a
proper deed was made for the land, and
the deferred payments were secured by
deed of trust. When the grautor died
there remained unpaid four ofthe deferred
payments, for the sum of So, 622 % each. In
November, 1862, the widow Of the deceased
Hiram L. Opie and Thomas l.. Opie quail
fed as personal representatives IF the es-
tate ofthe decedent.
Late in the year 1862, Castleman, know
ing there was due on the purchase money
of the notes which had matured January l,
1861, and January l, 1862, something like
So, OJ0, with unpaid interest, got together
notes of the Confederate States and Vir-
ginia bank notes sufficient to pay OIL the
notes due, and crossing the military lines
to Augusta county, he found Mrs. Ople,
one OF the personal representatives above
mentioned, and paid off and discharged
the notes then overdue, the money paid
by him at the time being greatly depre-
ciated. At the time this payment was
made, Mary and John, heirs OF the dece-
dent, were under age, and the plaintiff
in this action was away from home
and has not ratified the action of
the personal representatives OF the
estate. Subsequently Castleman paid
and discharged the notes which fell due in
January 1863 and 1864 in the depre-
ciated currency, and in 1865 a release was
executed by the trustee in the deed OF
trust upon the request OF Mrs. Opie, the
administrative Of the estate. The estate
of the decendent was not in debt, but the
greater part of the money which thus
came into the possession Of the personal
representative was invested in the bonds
of the Confederate States.
These being the facts in the case, the
question which presented itself for the
consideration of the Court was, were the
payments made on a contract entered into
before the war, and which at the time
were TO he discharged in the lawful money
of the United States, satisfied and extin-
guished by the payments made to the
iduciaries in deprecated currency?
In delivering his opinion, Judge Jackson
said:
at is to be borne in mind that the rela-
ton of q iduciary TO the estate he repre-
sents is very different from that of the de
cedent, if living. The latter could exercise
unlimited discretion TO do as he saw proper
in accepting "a payment of q debt due him
any currency passing for money, however
deprecated, whilst the former, acting in n
iduciary capacity, would be required 10
exercise the soundest discretion. A per-
sOnal representative must act in good faith
with the estate he has in charge. 1t il his
duty to look after the estate, preserve it
from waste and protecti it from unnecessary
expenditure.
''In the case before US, there IL no
charge of neglect of the property, or the
usual charge of waste connected with its
administration. The heirs in this instance,
who are asserting their rights in this ne
ton, did not ask for a distribution OF its
assets; two Of them being minors and the
other absent from home. 1t does not APP
pear that they ever consented OF aCquiesced
in the action Of the personal representa-
tive. Moreover, the debtor was not pressed
or required TO pay the money. On the con-
trary, he seemed to have put himself to IN
usual trouble TO secure the funds with which
I to pay the debts due the estate in a depreci-
atCd currency, the greater portion of which
he had to borrow, and which only had 4
purchasing power of one-third of its face
value. This attempt to pay off and dis
charge the debt was made outside the mill
tary lines of the United States, to satisfy a
debt fully secured upon lands within
the Federal lines, in a currency not only
unauthorized by the laws Of the land in
which the contract was made, and where
the debt was properly payable, but the
proceeds were invested in the bonds of the
Confederate States, issued for the ayowed
purpose Of waging war against the United
= States.
For this reason we are inclined to the
opinion that this action of the aduciary IL
wholly illegal and void. We might we'll
8 rely upon this position as conclusive Of this
case. 1t is, however, cOntended that the
fduciary should not have accepted the pay
ment OfNthe Confederate money. We do
not deny that where the necessity of the
estate required it, that the iduciary may in
the exercise of a sound discretion, do that
which will promote the bcs. i1teTests OF the
estate. This rule is, however, general in
its character, and its application must be
controlled by the circumstances surround
ing each case. In this case the estate wa
not embarrassed by debt, and there was
little or no need of money for any legiti-
mate purpose.
"But we do not rest this case alone upon